SURESH B DESAI,,SURAT vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No’S.1720 & 1721/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Suresh B Desai, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 101, Vishal Apartment, Near Jamna Income Tax, Central Circle – Nagar Bus Stand, Ghod Dod Road, 3, Surat. Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Aappd 7237 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri S.R.Meena –Sr.Dr राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 26.07.2019 सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 26.07.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On: आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: The Above Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 1. Common Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Surat (In Short The “Cit(A)”) Dated 29.05.2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.2,01,980/- & Rs.18,370/- Respectively.

151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after Suresh B Desai Vs. DCIT, C.C.-3, Surat /ITA No’s.1720 & 1721/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 & 12-13 Page 7 of 9 the 31st

RAMESHKUMAR LAXMANLAL SIROYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.48 & 49/Srt/2022 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Rameshkumar Laxmanlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- Siroya, 7/C Supari Baugh 3(2)(6), Anavil Business Vs Mension, Nirmala Niwas, 34 Center, Adajan Hazira Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Road, Adajan, Mumbai-400012 Surat-395 007 Pan : Afaps 0153 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on 20.04.2017. Certain facts in both the appeals are common ITA Nos.48-49/SRT/2022 (A.Y 09-10) Rameshkumar L Siroya therefore, with the consent of the parties both the appeals are clubbed, heard and are decided by consolidate order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, the assessee has raised the following grounds

RAMESHKUMAR LAXMANLAL SIROYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-3(2)(6), SURAT

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita Nos.48 & 49/Srt/2022 (Ay 2009-10) (Hearing In Virtual Court) Rameshkumar Laxmanlal Income Tax Officer, Ward- Siroya, 7/C Supari Baugh 3(2)(6), Anavil Business Vs Mension, Nirmala Niwas, 34 Center, Adajan Hazira Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Road, Adajan, Mumbai-400012 Surat-395 007 Pan : Afaps 0153 D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on 20.04.2017. Certain facts in both the appeals are common ITA Nos.48-49/SRT/2022 (A.Y 09-10) Rameshkumar L Siroya therefore, with the consent of the parties both the appeals are clubbed, heard and are decided by consolidate order to avoid the conflicting decision. For appreciation of facts, the assessee has raised the following grounds

M/S. BASE INDUSTRIES LTD.,SILVASSA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD -1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus,certain facts in both the appeals are common, therefore, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order to avoid the conflicting decision. In ITA No.1581/AHD/2013, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On appreciation of the facts and circumstances

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

271/-.\n9. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has reproduced submission of the assessee in para 6.2 of the appellate order. Before CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he had not received cash from Dr. Laxmichand and Shri Trilokchand Kamdar of Rs.1,54,89,000/- and Rs.2

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

271/-. 9. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has reproduced submission of the assessee in para 6.2 of the appellate order. Before CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he had not received cash from Dr. Laxmichand and Shri Trilokchand Kamdar of Rs.1,54,89,000/- and Rs.2

RADHA MADHAV ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARK,VAPI vs. ACIT, CENTARL CIRCLE-1, VAPI, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

271/-. 9. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has reproduced submission of the assessee in para 6.2 of the appellate order. Before CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he had not received cash from Dr. Laxmichand and Shri Trilokchand Kamdar of Rs.1,54,89,000/- and Rs.2

RADHA MADHAV ECO-INDUSTRIAL PARK,VALSAD vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.762/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.625/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) The Acit, Vs. Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Central Circle – 1, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Vapi Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) Radha Madhav Eco-Industrial Park, Vs. The Acit, Village Degam, Opp – Padmavati Central Circle – 1, Logistics, Nasik Road, Degam, Tal – Vapi, Vapi District – Valsad – 396191, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaofr2845L (Appellant) (Respondent)

271/-. 9. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has reproduced submission of the assessee in para 6.2 of the appellate order. Before CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he had not received cash from Dr. Laxmichand and Shri Trilokchand Kamdar of Rs.1,54,89,000/- and Rs.2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VAPI vs. RADHA MADHAV ECO INDUSTRIAL PARK, VAPI

271/-.\n9.\nAggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before the\nCIT(A). The CIT(A) has reproduced submission of the assessee in para 6.2 of\nthe appellate order. Before CIT(A), the assessee submitted that he had not\nreceived cash from Dr. Laxmichand and Shri Trilokchand Kamdar of\nRs.1,54,89,000/- and Rs.2

SHRI ASHOK RAMANLAL PATEL, HUF,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld Cit(A) Which Was Dismissed By Him. However, On Further Appeal Before The Tribunal, The Initiation Of The Reassessment Proceedings By Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Was Quashed In Absence Of Approval/Sanction Of The Appropriate

penalty proceedings were separately initiated under section 271(1)(c) for concealing long term capital gains. Subsequently, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) which was dismissed by him. However, on further appeal before the Tribunal, the initiation of the reassessment proceedings by issuance of notice u/s 148 was quashed in absence of approval/sanction of the appropriate

GAURAVA MISHRA,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(8), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Gaurav Mishra, Vs. Ito, Present Address: - Ward -3 (2)(8), 80, Bayshore Road, Unit No.28, Surat (Costa Del Sol), Singapore – 46992 Permanent Address: 605, Spathik Shilla, Sundar Nagar Purani Basti, So Raipur – 492001, C.G., India "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amkpm6042J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Veekass Sharma, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

151 is liable to be quashed.” 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for AY 2012-13. As per AIR information, the assessee had purchased immovable property at Rs.34,46,019/- and received salary of Rs.2,18,194/-. After recording the reasons, the case was reopened u/s

PRIME CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD,SURAT vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.19/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2013-14 (Hybrid Hearing) Prime Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs. Acit, Khatodra, Ring Road, Surat – Circle-1(1)(1), 395002 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcp7117M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

section 151 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) observed that as per NMS data, the assessee had entered into the following bank transactions: (i) cash transactions of Rs.6,00,000/-, (ii) cash deposits of Rs.62,92,50,000/- in savings bank account and (iii) cash deposits of Rs.61,01,50,000/- with banking companies. Though there

RAJHANS METALS,,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PR. CIT-1,, VALSAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of the Act. 3. It is prayed that above order passed by Principal Commissioner of Income-tax may please be quashed/set aside. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal 3. The relevant material facts

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty etc. on my shoulders. I humbly submit that the impugned order is high pitched order and is also arbitrary.” 4. Apart from this, ld Counsel also submitted that entire delay has resulted due to mistake of assessee`s Tax Consultant, Shri Pradip Gohil, who has not checked the order of ld CIT(A) in the e-portal of Income